Author 




Title 



Glass 



Book 



3«I)fl.i3-Sl. Imprint 

C 5 C .54 



It*— WWO-l gpo 



SPEECH 



C. C. CLAY, JR., OF ALABAMA, 



THE BILL INTRODUCED BY HIM TO REPEAL TIIE 
FISHING BOUNTIES. 



DELIVERED IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, MAT 4, 185S. 



The Senate having under consideration the bill introduced by Hr. Clay, of 
Alabama, for the repeal *©f the fishing bounties — Mr. CLAY said: 

Mr. President : " The catching of cod is a very momentous concern," said Fisher 
Ames in the first Congress of the Union, and, sir, this sentiment has been re- 
peated so often, and so emphatically, that many persons, without au examination 
of the subject, have taken it for granted that "the catching of cod is a very 
momentous concei-n." Indeed, considering the peculiar, extraordinary, and 
exclusive favor with which cod catching has been treated by the Congress of 
the United States, any one might conclude that the catching of cod is a most 
momentous concern. 

It is my purpose to inquire into the reason why Mr. Ames said, in 1789, that 
the catching of cod is a most momentous concern, for the purpose of vindicating 
him from the suspicion of trifling with the truth, and of alleging what he did 
not believe, for the sake of achieving some sectional advantage. The dignity, 
purity, and elevation of his character, forbid the idea that he would have been 
guilty of any such assertion if he had not really believed it true. A comparison 
of the relations of cod fishing to the tonnage, commerce, revenue, and seamen 
of the United States, at that day, will show that he did not speak without 
warrant of reason, and authority of facts ; and a similar comparison of those 
relations at this day, will show that, however truly it may have been uttered 
by him, it would be simply ridiculous and absurd, at this time, to say that 
" the catching of cod is a very momentous concern." 

However, sir, before proceeding to exhibit this comparison, I must show the 
peculiar and extraordinary favor with which this interest has been treated. 
How much was paid to the fisheries, under the sj-stem of allowances, in lieu of 
drawback to the shippers or exporters of fish, 1 am not prepared to say ; but 
since 1792, when the system of tonnage allowances was adopted, there have 
been paid to the cod fisheries the sum of $12,128,532. They have received, 
annually, an average sum exceeding two hundred and five thousand dollars. 
During the last ten years, they have received an annual average sum of 
$323,046. This large sum has been divided among about fifteen thousand persons, 
supposing that the fishermen have shared the bounty together with the owners 
of the fishing vessels, or it has been divided among only about two or, at most, 
three thousand owners of fishing vessels. Of this sum of $12,128,532, the States 
of Maine and Massachusetts have received more than eleven-twelfths, or 
$1 1,295,298, while the other States have received, in the aggregate, but $833,234. 

Printed by Lemuel Towers. 



^ 



Of the two thousand and eighty-eight vessels in the trade last year, one thou- 
sand nine hundred and twenty-eight were owned in the States of Maine and 
Massachusetts; the remaining one hundred and sixty were divided between 
three States — Connecticut owning one hundred and thirty four, New Hampshire 
but twenty-five, and Rhode Island but one. Of the fourteen thousand six hun- 
dred and sixteen fishermen reported to be employed in this trade, thirteen 
thousand four hundred and ninety-six belong to Maine and Massachusetts, and 
the remaining one thousand one hundred and twenty to three States — Connec- 
ticut having nine hundred and thirty-eight, New Hampshire one hundred and 
seventy-five, and Rhode Island but seven. 

Tims, sir, it appears that this is a purely local interest, confined to a very 
small section of the United States, and a small class of the citizens of the United 
States, found, I may say, within but two States of the Union. Now, consider- 
ing the small number of persons who have participated in this bounty of the 
Government, and the large benefit which has been bestowed upon them, it is 
matter of special wonder that it should have been tolerated so long, and might 
justly induce tho opinion that it had been, in the consideration of Congress, of 
most momentous concern. The inducements, or arguments, in favor of the 
fishing allowances presented by Mr. Ames, Mr. Gerry, and other distinguished 
advocates of that interest, in 1792, were that it would increase the commerce, 
the revenue, and the seamen of the United States. Mr. Gerry said, " to support 
the fisheries is to support the revenue," and he undertook to show "the dimi- 
nution of revenue in consequence of the failure of the fisheries." Mr. Ames said, 
"it is an immense fund of wealth." and "will enrich while it will protect the 
nation." From the exhibition which I shall make of the relative importance of 
this interest compared with the other interests of the United States at that 
time, I repeat, these assertions were not without warrant of reason.. 

The total tonnage of the United States in 1790, was but two hundred and 
seventy-four thousand three hundred and seventy-seven tons, of which that 
employed in the cod fisheries was thirty-one thousand eight hundred and forty- 
two tons; the proportion of the cod fish tonnage to the other tonnage of the 
United States being as one to seven, or in other words, the cod fish tonnage 
constituting, at lhat time, one-eighth of the entire tonnage of the United States. 
But how is it at this time? In 1857, the total tonnage of the United States, in 
round numbers, was, say five millions — for it wanted only fifty-nine thousand 
of that nun-ber — of which that employed in the cod fisheries was but one hun- 
dred ard iour thousand five hundred and seventy-three tons, the proportion of 
the c<_d l>ah tonnage to the other tonnage of the United States being as one to 
forty-seven, or in other words, constituting but one forty-eighth part of the en- 
tire tonnage of the United States. Since 1790 the cod fish tonnage has increased 
but three-fold, while the other tonnage of the United States has been increased 
about twenty-fold. 

So in respect to commerce. Mr. Ames said, in 17S9, that, in 1774, previous 
to the Revolution, the. value of exported cod was upwards of a million dollars. 
If so, at that time it constituted one-sixth of the whole commerce of the United 
States ; for the value of the aggregate domestic products of the United States, 
at that time, was but $6,165,413. In 1804, the total domestic exports of the 
United States were ;41,467,477; of which exported cod made $2,400,000. At 
that time, the proportion was as one to seventeen and two-tenths, in 1857, 
however, the total domestic exports of the United States were $338,985,065 ; 
of which the value of the exported cod was but $570,348 ; the proportion being ' 
about as one to six hundred. The decrease in the value of exported cod, since 
1804, has been $1,829,652; while the increase in value of the other domestic 
exports of the United States has been $297,517,5S8. 

So in respect to revenue*. As I have shown before, at first the exports of c«d 
amounted to about one-sixth of the total exports of the United States, ar>d, of 
course, brought in foreign goods in exchange, which furnished, I may say, one- 
sixth of the revenue of the United States. At this day, however, && I shall 
show after a while, the cod fisheries, instead of adding to, are annually abstract- 
ing from the revenue of the United States. Where they put one dollar into the 
Treasury they draw more than twelve out 



In Exchange 
Duko University 
AUG 1 » 193*3 






Thus it appears that all the predictions of the value of the cod fisheries as an 
immense source of wealth, made by their advocates in 1792, have proven false 
and delusive. At this time they forth but a forty-eighth part of the tonnage of 
the United states, but a six-hundredth part of the commerce of the United 
States, and instead of adding to the revenue, they annually abstract from the 
revenue nearly three hundred thousand dollars more than they put in. Who, 
then, at this day, considering the cod fisheries in their relation to the commerce, 
the tonnage, and the revenue of the United States, can say that they are of 
very momentous concern ? 

But, sir, it will be urged, as it was urged in that day, that the cod fisheries 
are the nurseries of American seamen. This, too, was urged with some show 
of reason in 1792, for at that time cod fishermen composed, perhaps, about one- 
half of the American seamen. We had, at that time, no other fishery except 
the whale fishery. We had no fisheries around the coast of Florida, or in the 
Gulf of Mexico, or on the Pacific coast; no herring, no mackerel fishery, no 
fishery in the great lakes in the Northwest. We had but little commerce, and 
not sufficient vessels or seamen even to carry that. Then it was said, wi$jappa- 
rent reason, that the cod fishery is the nursery of seamen ; but at this time, as 
I have shown, the cod fishery bears an unimportant relation to the commerce 
and tonnage of the United States. At this time, instead of composing nearly 
half of all the seamen of the United States, it composes not exceeding one-thir- 
teenth part, for we have over one hundred and sixty thousand seamen engaged 
in the mackerel fishery, in the whale fishery, in the merchant service, and in the 
military marine of the United States; while there are but thirteen thousand 
employed in the cod fisheries. 

These inducements, which were presented for fostering the cod fisheries, no 
longer exist ; and if they were the only arguments in support of the bounty 
now conferred on them, that bounty should be repealed. But, sir, I deny that 
these were the inducements for the enactment of these laws. They were argu- 
ments that were urged in favor of them ; but the true reason of each of these 
laws was the salt duty. The salt duty was the source of all the allowances, 
whether called drawbacks or bounties, which have been bestowed by any of 
these laws upon the cod fisheries; and that I think I shall be able to show to 
the satisfaction of the Senate. 

The reason of the law, I have said, was the salt duty. The law was predi- 
cated upon the idea that duties should be levied upon the consumption, and not 
upon the production, of fhe country; upon the imports, and no* upon the ex- 
ports. It was said, with a good deal of plausibilit}', that a man who exports 
an article which he has imported, and on which he has paid the i .port duty, 
should have that duty refunded ; because it would be exchanged for some for- 
eign article which would be brought into the country, and would again pay 
duty; and if you did not refund him the duty on the exported article, it would 
be equivalent to taxing him with double duty. In each of these acts, I main- 
tain that it was the purpose of Congress to give a drawback, and not a bounty. 

The difference between a drawback and bounty is well understood by the 
Senate, but may not be understood by the country; and I shall define what I 
understand to be that difference, in order that the country may appreciate pro- 
perly the wrong done them by the present bounties bestowed on the cod fishe- 
ries. Drawback is a mere return of the duty paid by n importer of an arti- 
cle, upon his exportation of that article. It is refunding him his own money. 
It is, as said by Mr. Madison, in debate, in 1792, merely paying a debt — a debt 
due from the Government to the exporter of an article for moneys advanced by 
him to the Government upon importing that article. Bounty, on the other 
hand, is a gratuity, a premium bestowed upon the producers, the exporters, or 
the importers of certain articles, or upon those who engage ships in certain 
trades. Drawback is founded upon a valuable- consideration — bounty upon 
mere governmental favor. 

Having explained this distinction, I repeat tnat the purpose of all these laws 
was to give drawback and not bounty — that the fishermen themselves did not 
ask bounty, but drawback — that they did not sue for favor, but demanded jus- 
tice. They said, give us what you give the merchant on the exportation of an 



article imported by him ; return us our money — that is all we ask. Drawback, 
and not bounty, was all that was advocated by the representatives of fisher- 
men in either House of Congress. They repudiated the charge of seeking 
bounty; they denied it, and protested that they only asked drawback, and no 
bounty. Drawback, and not bounty, was all Congress intended to give. 

A brief abstract of the several acts on the subject of fishing allowances, will 
show that such was the intention of Congress as expressed in the acts them- 
selves. .1 shall not weary the patience of the Senate by going over those acts, 
but will present a brief summary of such phrases in each of the acts as will 
establish the position I assume. In the first tariff act passed by the first Con- 
gress of the United States, on the 4th of July, 1789, a duty of six cents per 
bushel was laid on imported salt. The fourth section of the same act granted 
five cents for every quintal of dried, and every barrel of pickled fish, or of 
salted provisions, exported to foreign countries; and declared that this allowance 
was made, to use the language of the act, "in lieu of drawback of the duties on 
the importation of the salt employed and expended therein." Thus it appears 
that the duty exceeded the allowance in lieu of drawback by one cent per bushel 
of salt; and the fishermen afterwards complained that they did not really get 
an equivalent for the drawback; that the Government was still their debtor for 
something more than they had received. The reason of this assertion was, that 
they said it required a bushel of salt for each quintal of dried or every barrel 
of pickled fish; and that, as they had paid six cents a bushel on importing the 
salt as duty, and received but five cents per quintal of dried, or barrel of 
pickled fish in return, they did not receive the full amount of their drawback. 

The act of August 4, 1790, made stringent provisions, requiring full proof 
that the fish or provisions had been exported, and had been cured with foreign 
salt that paid duty, before the drawback was paid. The act of August 10, 1790, 
doubled the duty on salt, raising it from six to twelve cents; and doubled the 
allowance on the fish or provisions exported, raising it to ten cents per quintal 
and ten cents per barrel; and declared, to quote the language of the act, that 
this was done " in lieu of a drawback of the duty on the salt expended there- 
upon" 

Up to this period of time there can be no dispute — there is no ground for dis- 
puting the assertion that drawback, and not bounty, was all that was granted 
by Congress; but then the system was changed on the petition of the fishermen 
themselves. By the act of February 18, 1792, the allowance was shifted from 
the shipper, or exporter of the fish, to the owner of the fishing vessel, and from 
the exported fish to the tonnage of the vessel. This was done at the instance 
of the fishermen themselves, and I will read a brief- extract from one of their 
memorials in order to show what they expected to get, and what they asked. 
They said "that the bounty granted to the 1 fishery by Congress" — they called 
it bounty, and I am amazed to find that the term bounty is frequently used in 
the law, although inappropriately, according to the strict import of the term — 
" as a compensation for the duty on salt will not operate to that effect so effectu- 
allv as if paid direct into the hands of the owners of the vessels, instead of the 
shippers of the fish." 

In pursuance of this and other memorials Congress shifted the allowance from 
the shipper of th« fish to the owner of the fishing vessel, allowing so much per 
ton for each ton of the vessel employed in the cod fishery. It did not give, or 
propose to give, however, anything more than the drawback. 

Mr. FESSENDEN. When was that? 

Mr. CLAY. On the 18th of February, 1792. The amount of the allowance 
on the tonnage was regulated by the quantity of salt consumed in curing the 
fish. It was said that each quintal of fish required a bushel of salt, and it was 
estimated that the average quantity of fish taken to each ton would be twelve; 
and therefore the duty multiplied by twelve gave the allowance per ton to each 
vessel employed in the cod fishery. Now, it will be remarked, and may be urged 
in ar^imeut on the other side of this question, that this tonnage allowance 
varied with the size of the vessel, and hence it may be maintained that really 
more was given in the way of tonnage allowance than had been given in the 



5 



way of drawback on the exported fish. But, in reply to that assertion, it will 
be found that the tonnage allowance, although it may have exceeded somewhat 
the drawback on the larger clas8 of vessels, fell below it on the smaller vessels 
more than it exceeded it on the larger, and thus in the aggregate, as alleged 
by the advocates of this law, the Government probably paid out, less in the 
way of tonnage allowance than it did in the way of drawback. Besides, there 
was a maximum aggregate allowance fixed by law, which could not be exceeded, 
although falling short of the duty paid by the vessel on the salt it consumed. 

The advocates of the act of 1792 maintained that the Government, as well 
as the fishermen, would save money by the change proposed. I will read a 
brief extract from the speech of every advocate of the fishing bounty in 1792, 
made in Congress, in order to show what they intended, or professed to intend, 
in the enactment of the law.. Mr. Goodhue, of Massachusetts, on the 3d of 
February, 1792, speaking of the objections to the existing mode of paving the 
allowance in lieu of drawback to the shipper or exporter of the fish, said : 

"The object of the present bill is only to repay the same money into the 
hands of those persons who are immediately concerned in catching the fish ; 
and there can no reasonable objection be made to such a transfer of the draw- 
back, as Government will not lose a single dollar by the eliange. The gentle- 
man from Virginia [Mr. Giles] talks of the unconstitutionality of granting 
bounties; bub no bounty is required. We only ask, in another mode, the usual 
drawback for the salt used on the fish. If we can make it appear that the bill 
does not contemplate any greater sums to be drawn from the treasury than are 
already allowed, it is to be hoped that no further opposition will be made to 
the measure; and that this is really the case, can be proved by docuinents'from 
the Treasury Office." 

And then he read a statement and calculation, to prove his assertion, and to 
show that the United States would probably save a thousand dollars per annum 
by making the proposed change. Mr. Ames, of Massachusetts, said on the same 
day: 

"Though the whole is intended for the benefit of the fishery, about one-fourth 
of what is paid is not so applied ; there is a heavy loss both to Government and 
the fishery. Even what is paid on the export is nearly lost money; the bounty 
is not paid till the exportation, nor then, till six months have elapsed; whereas, 
the duty on salt is paid before the fish is taken — it is paid fcb the exporter, not • 
to the fishermen. The bounty is so indirect that the poor fisherman loses sight 
of it. It, is paid to such persons, in such places, and at such periods, as to dis- 
appoint its good effects; passing through so many hands, and paying so many 
profits to each, it is almost absorbed." * * « * 

"Yet, instead of asking bounties, or a, remission of duties on the article con- 
sumed, we ask nothing but to give us our money back, which you received un- 
der an engagement to pay it back, in case the article should be' exported." * * 

" The drawback falls near nine thousand dollars short of the salt duty received 
by the Government." ***** 

" We rely on the evidence before you, that the public will not sustain the 
charge of a dollar." 

Mr. Gerry, of Massachusetts, said on the same dav: 

"It is now proposed to make a further commutation; e.-ntlemen call this a 
bounty on occupation; but is there any proposition ihade Cor paying to the 
fishermen, or other persons concerned in the fishery, any sums which we have 
not previously received from them? If this were the case; it would indeed be 
a bounty, but if we beforehand Receive from them as much as the allowance 
amounts to, there is no bounty granted at all. 

"The only question now is, whether this be a direct bounty, or simply a com- 
mutation of the allowance already granted by Congress." 

Mr. Livermore, of New Hamshire, said on the 6th of February; i7')2 : 

"If gentlemen are disputing only because the word 'bounty' is in the bill, 
they may be perfectly relieved from their uneasiness on that score ; for the bill 
expressly says ' that the bounty now allowed upon the exportation of dried fish, 



6 

of the fisheries of the United States, shall cease, and in lieu thereof,' a different 
kind of encouragement to be given. Here is no reason to dispute about a word. 
If gentlemen are disposed to consent to the principle of the bill, that the draw- 
back of the duties on salt shall be commuted for a certain sum, to encourage 
the fishermen, they will vote in favor of the bill ; if not, they will vote against 
it But it is impossible for me to conceive why any gentleman under heaven 
ahould be against it." * * * * * 

" It does not lay a farthing of bounty or duty on any other persons than those 
who are immediately concerned in it It will serve them, and will not injure 
anybody." 

Mr. Lawrence, of New York, said: 

" From examining the section, he conceived it contemplated no more than 
what the merchant ia entitled to under the existing laws. The merchant is now 
entitled to the drawback, but it is found by experience that the effect has not 
been to produce that encouragement of the fishermen it was expected ; and he 
presumed the way was perfectly clear to give a new direction to the drawback ; 
and this is all that is aimed at in the bill." 

Mr. Madison, of Virginia, participated in the debate ; and I wish to call par- 
ticular attention to his remarks, because, in the recent resolutions of the Legis- 
lature of the State of Maine, he is spoken of as one of the fathers of this sys- 
tem, and it is due to his memory to vindicate him from the reproach of being 
the advocate of bounties. On the other hand, he combated, in an elaborate 
and able argument, the doctrine of " the general welfare," then first put forth 
by General Hamilton ; and he supported the bill expressly on the ground that 
it was a mere commutation of drawback, but no bounty. Mr. Madison said : 

" I think, however, that the term bounty is in every point of view improper, 
as it is here applied, not only because it may be offensive to some, and, in the 
opinion of others, carries a dangerous implication, but also because it does not 
express the true intention of the bill, as avowed and advocated by its patrons 
themselves. For if, in the allowance, nothing more is proposed than a mere re- 
imbursement of the sum advanced, it is only paying a debt; and when we pay 
a debt we ought not to claim the merit of granting a bounty." 

Mr. Bourne, of Massachusetts, said: 

"The object of the first section in this bill is intended for the relief of the 
fishermen and their owners. They complain that the law now in force was 
meant for their benefit, by granting a drawback on the fish exported; this they 
find by experience is not the case, for they say that neither the fishermen who 
catch the fish, nor the importer of the 6alt, receive the drawback; and I rather 
suppose, sir, it is the case." 

Thus I have quoted from ever}' speech in favor of this tonnage allowance in 
1792, all of which corroborate my assertion that the purpose avowed by the 
advocates of this system was to secure a drawback and not bounty ; that they 
all repelled the charge of seeking bounty, and protested that they demanded 
justice, but sued for no favor. In compliance with this understanding, this act 
was passed, and every subsequent act which was passed upon the subject ex- 
presses in itself the same purpose. Thus the act of May, 1792, increased the 
duty by substituting for the measured bushel of eighty-four pounds the weighed 
bushel of fifty-six pounds, and added twenty per cent, to the fishing allowance. 
The act of July, 1797, increased the salt duty to twenty cents a bushel, and 
added thirty-three and a third per cent to the allowance. The act of April, 
1800, continued this allowance for ten years, which would have expired in 1800 
by the limitation of the last act of 1797, but continued it on this express con- 
dition : 

"The said allowances shall not be understood to be continued for a longer 
time than the correspondent duties respectively, for which such allowances were 
granted, shall be payable." 

The act of May, 1807, repealed the duty and the allowances. At the time 
that act was passed, scarce a word was said in defense of the fisheries ; all the 



resistance was against the repeal of the duty, because the advocates of the 
fisheries seemed to take it for granted that if the duty were repealed the allow - 
aace would be repealed, as a matter of course. They all regarded it, as it really 
was, but an incident of the salt duty, deriving its existence from the salt duty, 
and necessarily dying with the salt duty. The act of July, 1813, revived the 
duty of twenty cents a bushel on salt, and gave a drawback of twenty cents 
on pickled fish, and a proportionate bounty on tonnage. The act of March, 
1819, increased the boxinty. A change of the tonnage allowance always fol- 
lowed every change in the salt duty. It originated with the salt duty, rose 
with the salt duty, perished with the salt duty, was revived with the salt duty, 
was increased with the salt duty, and has been continued with the salt duty ; 
but has not been reduced with the duty. 

Thus, sir, upon the face of the acts themselves, I think it is perfectly manifest 
that the purpose of Congress was to grant a drawback, but no bounty. In re- 
spect to these tonnage allowances, I find that iu 1816, when a resolution was 
offered for their repeal, Mr. Reed maintained that the tonnage allowance was 
not equal to the drawback. He stated ' hat though it might exceed it on some 
vessels, iu the aggregate it fell short of the drawback. Such was perhaps the 
fact. 

The fishermen themselves always understood and construed the law as giv- 
ing drawback, and not bounty. After the repeal of the salt duty, and the al- 
lowances, in 180*7, many of them came to Congress with memorials praying to 
be paid the allowance, on the ground that they had purchased the salt, and 
paid duty on it before the repeal of the law; and iu some instances the vessel 
had been east away, or the salt landed in a foreign country. In each and 
every instance, it will be found that they treated the allowance as a mere 
drawback, or commutation of the drawback, of the salt duty. For exam- 
ple, here is the memorial of several persons residing in Portsmouth, iu which 
they say: 

"The salt employed by said vessels in said voyages had paid the highest duty 
on that article, for they sailed with all their salt on board, nearly two months 
before the duty was reduced at all. As the allowance was expressly granted 
in consideration of the duty, the full allowance is due, as the full duty has been 
paid. Justice would say that, having paid the duty without any diminution, 
they ought to receive the allowance without any diminution." 

Here is the petition of others, of the town of Killingworth, Connecticut, in 
which they say : 

" Your petitioners, however, believe that the circumstances herein related 
bring them within the spirit of the law allowing a bounty; that the salt sent 
in said vessel has, in fact, been exported. And your petitioners cannot persuade 
themselves that it was the intention of Congress to allow the bounty only to 
the fortunate. The revenue is no more injured in this case than in other 
cases where a bounty is received; and the fishermen sent out in the vessel 
have been employed in the fishery for the whole period required by law." 

I might multiply these illustrations of the construction of the fishermen 
themselves, but will rest with these. All of them show, however, that they 
regarded this as an allowance in lieu of drawback, as nothing more than draw- 
back, and no bounty. 

Such has been the construction of the Treasury Department from the time of 
Jfcr. Jtarwlton down to that of Mr. Woodbury; for in all their annual reports 
You will find that they exhibit the proceeds of the salt duty in this manner: 
ferst, they show the aggregate nunber of bushels imported, then the aggregate 
number exported, then the allowances to the fishing vessels; then they convert 
those allowances into bushels of salt at the existing rate of duty, and subtract 
them fnom the gross number of bushels imported, and then give the result as 
th« net amount of salt paying duty. 

It appears, then, by the language of the acts themselves, by the arguments 
of the advocates of those acts, by the memorials of the fishermen praying for 
those acts, by the construction of those acts by the fishermen, and by the con- 
struction of the Treasury Department, that Congress gave, or intended to give, 



8 

and the fishermen asked, or professed to ask, nothing more than drawback, and 
no bounty. 

But, sir, -what is the fact this time? Instead of merely receiving drawback, 
they now receive a large amount of bounty. This has resulted froifa the reduc- 
tion of the salt duty, .without any correspondent reduction of the tonnage 
allowance. Up to 1830, to which time the salt duty was twenty cents on the 
weighed bushel of fifty-six pounds, which was equal to about thirty cents on 
the measured bushel of eighty pounds — up to 1830, if they received anything 
more than drawback, it was probably an inconsiderable amount; but, in that 
year, the salt duty was reduced from twenty to fifteen cents per bushel ; in 
1832, to ten cents; and, by the compromise act of 1833, a prospective scale of 
reduction was made, under which it sank to six ninety-eight-one-hundredths in 
1840 ; and at this day it amounts to only about two cents per bushel. The differ- 
ence between the drawback which would be due, and the bounty which is re- 
ceived ; may be estimated by multiplying the mimber of bushels of salt, allow- 
ing twelve to the ton, by the duty and subtracting it from the amount paid 
out. I have done that, and have ] epared a table exhibiting the tonnage of 
the vessels engaged in the cod fisheries, the allowance paid them, the sums due 
as drawback, and the excess of bounty over drawback for the period of ten 
years past. I shall not trouble the Senate to hear it all, but will append it to 
my remarks.* I will call the attention of the Senate to four periods-of time, 
equi distant, to show what has been the operation and effect of these laws 
within the last ten years. In 1848, the tonnage was eighty-two thousand six 
hundred and fifty-two tons; the allowance paid to the fishing vessels, $243,434; 
the sums due as drawback, at the rate of duty paid at that time, $22,811 ; the 
excess of bounty over drawback, $220,622. In 1851, the allowance paid was 
$328,267 ; the sum due as drawback, at the rate of duty then existing, $25,193 ; 
and the excess of bounty over drawback, $303,074. In 1854, the tonnage was 
one hundred and two thousand one hundred and ninety-four; the allowance, 
$374,286; the sum due as drawback, $31,261 ; and the excess of bounty over 
drawback, $343,000. In 1857, the tonnage reported was one hundred and four 
thousand five hundred and seventy-three; the allowance paid, $601,453; the 
sum due as drawback, at the existing rate of duties, $29,133; and the excess ot 
bounty above drawback, $572,299. The average tonnage per year for ten 
years past was ninety-three thousand seven hundred and eighty-two; the ave- 
rage allowance to the fisheries, $323,046; the average sums due as drawback, 
$26,612; the average annual excess of bounty over drawback, $292,433; and 
the aggregate excess of bounty over drawback nearly $3,000,000 — $2,964,336. 
Thus it appears that the effect of these laws has been widely different from 
what was intended by Congress in passing them, and what was supposed or ex- 
pected by the fishermen and their advocates. Thus it appears that the reason 
of the law has ceased. 

Mr. TOOMBS. What part of the whole salt duty did they absorb ? 

Mr. CLAY. At this day, and during the last ten years, instead of realizing 
simply a drawback of the duty on the salt consumed by them in the fisheries, 
they have realized all the salt duty, and not only all the salt duty, but for 
several years more than the salt duty. This, however, is not a full exhibit of 
the tax of this system on the people of the United States, because I have esti- 
mated the drawbacks due the fisheries upon the hypothesis that they imported 
all their salt, whereas the manufacturers of salt in Massachusetts tell us that 
they supply the larger part of what is used in the fisheries. It is predicated on 
the further hypothesis that they consume twelve bushels of salt to the ton, or 
in other words, that they catch twelve quintals of fish to the ton; whereas Mr. 
Zeno Scudder, formerly a Representative in the other House from the Barnsta- 
ble district, the largest fishing district in New England, which has received 
more than two million dollars in the shape of allowance and bounty, said in 
August, 1852, in the other branch of Congress, that they average but nine 
quintals to the ton, instead of twelve. If he was correct, we should add 
twenty-five per cent, to the excess of bounty as it has been estimated by me. 

Nor, sir, does that exhibit fully the tax upon the Government of the United 



9 

States in support of these fisheries. You must , take into consideration the cost 
of collecting and disbursing this bounty — estimated, by all political economists, 
at not less than two per cent. — and ranging from two to thirty; but, putting it 
down to the lowest amount on the $600,000 paid last year, it is no inconsidera- 
ble sum. Nor does this exhibit all the tax of this system ; for you must remem- 
ber that there have been revenue boats employed for a series of years, partly 
in order to watch these fishermen and prevent their committing frauds upon 
the treasury, and their violation of the laws regulating the cod fisheries; and 
that there have been four revenue cutters employed partly for the same pur- 
pose, at an annual expense of about eleven thousand dollars each, stationed 
upon the coast of New England alone ; while from New York to the mouth of 
the Rio Grande inclusive, we have but nine employed. My attention was direct- 
ed to this, and on inquiring at the Treasury Department the reason, I learned 
that some of these supernumerary cutters and revenue boats had been employed 
at the instance of the collectors in the fishing districts in New England to watch 
the fishermen and prevent their violations of the law. I have the evidence at 
hand to exhibit when this charge is controverted. Thus we pay the fishermen 
bounty for catching cod, and pay officers and men of revenue cutters and boats 
to see that they do their work honestly, and do not defraud the Government. 

Now, Mr. President, why shall not these laws be repealed ? I show that the 
inducements to the laws — if revenue, or commerce, or seamen were the induce- 
ments — no longer exist. I show that the reason of the law has ceased to exist. 
I show that the effect of the law is what was never intended, or expected, or 
desired by the fishermen. I show that they realize a bounty, and it behooves 
their advocate to show the authority of Congress to grant it. I deny that we 
have any such power under the Constitution ; I challenge the citation of that 
clause of the Constitution which warrants bounties, or the citation of any ex- 
press grant of power to carry out which these bounties are indispensably neces- 
sarv. On the contrary, I maintain that this power is plainly forbidden in sevo- 
raldauses of the Constitution, as well as by the whole spirit of that instrument 
and the theory of our Government. The Constitution declares that "direct 
taxes shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective 
numbers ; " that " no capitation or other direct tax shall be laid unless in propor- 
tion to the census ;" and that " all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform 
throughout the United States." 

The clear intent of all these clauses was to prevent Congress from imposing 
greater burdens, or conferring greater benefits, upon some States or some classes 
of citizens than upon others, and to secure justice, equity, and eqiiality in the 
collection and the disbursement of the revenue of the Government. Now, sir, 
suppose a bill for direct taxation was pending before this body, and a motion 
was made to exempt the citizens of Maine and Massachusetts from its operation, 
or from the imposition of a tax upon any single article, say their salt, proposed 
to be collected in the other States of the Union: Senators of the other twenty- 
nine States woidd revolt at the proposition; and even the Senators of those two 
States would concede that it was grossly unjust, if not unconstitutional. Sup- 
pose a tariff bill were now pending, and it was proposed to permit the people 
of Maine and Massachusetts to import their goods free of duty, or merely to 
import their salt free of duty, while exacting duty at the other ports of the 
United States. This, too, all would concede, would be unequal, unjust, and un- 
constitutional. 

Wherein lies the difference, in principle or effect, between the two cases sup- 
posed and that which exists. True, the people of Maine and Massachusetts pay 
a duty on their salt, like other people, but then you refund them that duty, not 
as drawback, but as bounty; not upon exported fish, cured with foreign salt, 
but upon all the fish that they catch, whether consumed at home or exported 
to foreign countries. Yea, you not only pay them all the duty received from 
them, but you give them all the duty received from everybody else. You re- 
fund them their sir,, nun paid as duty on salt, and superadd $292,000 collected 
off other people as duty upon salt. You give them twelve hundred per cent. 
more than they pay in. For every dollar which they put in the treasui \ a= a 
duty upon salt, you return them twelve and a half dollars. 



10 

Mr. FESSENDEN. I should like to understand the argument of the Senator. 
Will he allow me to ask him a question ? 

Mr. CLAY. Certainly. 

Mr. FESSENDEN. Do I understand him to press his argument in reference 
to the unconstitutionality of the bounty, or whatever it may be, as founded on 
the unequal operation of it ? 

Mr. CLAY. Yes, sir; partly. 

Mr. FESSENDEN". Well, sir, I can only say that I do not understand that 
argument as a legal one; that because an act operates unequally, ergo it is une- 
qual in view of the Constitution. 

Mr. CLAY. It is either intended to operate unequally, or it necessarily does 
operate unequally. 

Mr. FESSENDEN. We must judge by its terms. 

Mr. CLAY. Mr. President, to proceed with what I was saying, I ask wherein 
lies the difference between exempting one State from the payment of taxes or 
duties to the Government, and refunding it all its duties or taxes? Wherein 
lies the difference between exempting the people of Maine and Massachusetts 
from the payment of any salt duty, and refunding them all that they pay? 
Why, sir, in principle it is the same thing. Can you say that taxes are appor- 
tioned among the several States according to numbers, or that all duties, im- 
posts, and excises are uniform throughout the United States, if you collect du- 
ties or collect taxes from every State, and then give the duties or taxes thus col- 
lected to one or two States? Is this imposing equal burdens and conferring 
equal benefits on the several States, and the people who compose the States, as 
clearly intended by those clauses of the Constitution which I have read ? It 
would be far better for the interests of other tax-paj'ers, and of the other 
twenty-nine States of this Union, if the people of Maine and Massachusetts 
were permitted to import their salt free of duty; because then, instead of pay- 
ing them $328,000 a year, we should remit them but $26,000; we should pay 
th«m but a dollar where we now pay them twelve and a half. 

Mr. FESSENDEN. Will the Senator allow me to ask him another question 
in reference to the legal point? 

Mr. CLAY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. FESSENDEN. According to hi3 argument, if the people of one State 
did not use as much of a particular imported article which paid a duty as the 
people of another State proportionately, the law would be unconstitutional 
because it operated unequally ? 

Mr. CLAY. Not at alL 

Mr. FESSENDEN. Certainly that would follow from the argument. It is 
a necessary consequence of the argument. 

Mr. CLAY. I think not. I further maintain that this is unconstitutional 
because it is unjust. Nothing is proper or tolerable in legislation which is un- 
just. " To establish justice" the Constitution was framed and the Union was 
formed. Justice is the spirit of the Constitution and the bond of the Union, 
without which the Constitution is valueless, and the Union a curse. Justice is 
equality, is confering equal bounties and imposing equal burdens upon all the 
States, and all classes of citizens within the States. 

Now, sir, I ask what can be more unjust than this bounty paid to the cod fishe- 
ries. Is it just to exact of the mackerel, and herring, and other fishermen, a pay- 
ment of the duty upon their salt, and to exempt the cod fishermen from the pay- 
ment of the same duty ? Is this uniform taxation? Wherein, 1 repeat, lies the dif- 
ference between exempting cod fishermen from the duty and returning them the 
duty ? Is it just to require of the beef and pork packers of the West, and of the 
farmers of the entire Union, the payment of a duty on the salt which they con- 
sume, and to relieve the fishermen of the same burden in support of the Govern- 
ment? Is it just, or rather can anything be more unjust than not only to relieve 
the cod fishermen from this burden imposed upon other citizens of the United 



11 

States, but to give thorn the proceeds of th at. burden as a bounty? I should 
like to know what excuse the representatives of the other twenty-nine States 
of this Union can render to their constituents for sustaining a system which 
taxes a common necessary of life, the salt which thej T use, in order to raise 
bounties for a privileged class of two or three thousand, or afc most fifteen 
thousand persons ? , 

Since the doctrine of protection has been exploded, and is without a party 
in the country, or even an advocate in Congress, upon what principle can this 
bounty be maintained or defended? It is the extremest, greatest, and worst 
kind of protection ; exceeding protecting duties, or prohibiting duties, or exemp- 
tion from paying duties, or remission of duties. It is taking money derived from 
taxing the many, and giving it to the favored few. Here arc twelve or fourteen 
thousand men, if the fishermen get the bounty, or less than three thousand if 
the owners get it, receiving $300,000 annually from the Treasury as a pure gra- 
tuity ; not for what they have done, or are doing, or will do for the Treasury 
or the Government, or the people of the United States ; but for what they are doing 
for themselves, for pursuing their own business, for working for themselves, for 
catching cod fish ! The consideration of this bounty is the catching and selling, or 
cooking and eating, of cod fish ; the filling of their own purses, or stomachs! For 
this they are made pensioners of the Government — the only civil, the only 
honorary pensioners; for this they are preferred above all other fishermen, all 
other men of all other occupations; for this they are made peevdiar, extraordi- 
nary, and exclusive favorites ; for this they are honored and advanced above 
all other classes of pensioners. All other pensions rest upon some past and 
valuable consideration — upon public services, or losses sustained, or sufferings 
endured for the Government in the army or navy ; but for this no such sup- 
port can be found. The cod fishermen are not in the public service ; they 
nave not been public servants ; they have not lost their limbs, or their health, 
or suffered any injury, or incurred any peril, in the public service, at the call 
of their country. They are pensioners, not by merit, but by mere favorl 

No ; it is not what they are or have been, or do or have done, or must or 
will do, for their country, that they are fostered and fed by Government; it is 
for what they may do in the future ; it is upon the possibility of future service, 
that they are thus made stipendariesof Government. We may need these men 
to man our ships, say their advocates; therefore, we should cultivate their 
patriotism, and encourage their piscatory pastimes or pursuits, by an annual 
conciliatory bribe of $300,000. They are the nurselings of the sea ; the nas- 
cent Neptunes whose hands may direct our navies, defend our commerce, and 
decide the destiny of our country in war ! If war comes, where can you find 
seamen, save in the cod-fisheries? Nowhere! Not among the four thousand 
mackerel, nor the twenty thousand whale fishermen, nor the one hundred and 
thirty thousand merchant sailors, nor the seven thousand navy seamen ; not 
among these one hundred and sixty-one thousand men is there skill, courage, 
and patriotism enough to fight our naval battles. No, younmst look to the cod 
fishermen to dare the dangers of the deep, and defy the terrors of gunpowder, 
and grapple with our foes! 

Surely, if the destinies of our common country centre in the cod fisheries, then 
we may exclaim with Fisher Ames, " the catching of cod is a very momentous 
eonoern." 

Let us examine this bold and startling proposition, and see how far it can be 
sustained by facts or by arguments. No class of men can claim a monopoly of 
patriotism or of courage ; and the cod fishermen cannot prove their title to a 
larger share of these virtues than other fishermen or sailors. Neither can any 
satisfactory or sufficient reason be assigned why they are or should become 
better seamen. 

Why should they excel the mackerel fishermen in skill, courage, or patriot- 
ism ? They are of the same race, derived from the same origin, speak the same 
language, worship the same God, live under the same government, and pursue 
similar vocations. Mr. Scudder says the mackerel fishing is pursued in the 
same or similar vessels, in the same waters, at the same season of the year, and 
often by the same men, and is fraught with ecpual toil and danger. Wherein 



lies the difference of merit or value to the country between the catchers of 
mackerel and the catchers of cod? Mr. Scudder said there was none, and that 
they were equally entitled to Government favor. Certainly there can be no 
difference, unless it be imparted by the food. If the opinion of some philoso- 
phers or poets be true, that men partake of the nature of the animal on which 
they feed, perhaps there may be greater virtue in catching cod than mackerel 
or herring. • 

Why should they be better seamen than whale fishermen ? A cod-fish voy- 
age is of four months ; a whaling voyage of two to four years. Are four months' 
tuition in cod fishing worth more than four years' whaling? A cod-fish ex- 
cursion is of a few hundred miles ; a whaling cruise of twenty thousand miles. 
Is more learned in a short trip to Newfoundland than a long one in doubling 
Cape Horn ? Does casting the lines for cod require greater skill, dexterity, 
strength, or courage, than harpooning the whale ? Is more learned in a fishing 
smack or fore-and-aft schooner of five or forty tons than in a whaling ship of 
one thousand or more tons ? The smack has no yards, but two masts, and three 
sails — jib, foresail, and main-sail — all managed by halliards or ropes and pul- 
leys, without getting off decks; the sails are unfurled or furled by pulling or 
letting go a rope. But the great whale ship has its three masts, its twenty-odd 
sails rising one above the'other to ihe top-gallants, and its sixteen or more yards 
supporting the sails — the very names of which are unknown to the cod-fisher- 
man, because never used by him. He has not to go aloft to furl or reef sails, 
and could not if ordered. He never learns the duties or even the dialect of a 
whaler, or merchantman, or war vessel ; and on board of them would have no 
advantage over the land-lubber, except in walking the deck, and escaping sea- 
sickness. The mere inspection of a smack and a square-rigged ship will show 
that the former is no school on which to learn how to manage the latter. The 
contrast is as great as between a log cabin and the labyrinth of Crete ; and the 
cod fisherman would scarcely be more at fault in the labyrinth than in the 
ship. 

I do not utter these things without some authority. I understand from 
naval offipers that all the advantage a cod fisherman has over a mere "land- 
lubber " is in having learned to " rough it," to walk the deck, and escape sea- 
sickness ; but they say that they would rather take a raw recruit who had 
learned nothing, than to take a cod fisherman whom they would have to un- 
learn before they could teach. I hold in my hand the Plymouth Rock, pub- 
lished in one of the fishing districts of New England, in which I find this lan- 
guage : 

" The reasons why cod fishermen can never become proficient as 'ordinary 
seamen ' are too familiar to every man upon the sea-coast to need to be repeat- 
ed, but to others they may not be uninteresting. The cod fishing vessels are, 
in the first place, all f fore-and-aft schooners," and admitting the crew of each 
vessel to be permanent, or employed year by year in the same vessel, they ob- 
tain no knowledge of square-rigged vessels; and experienced shipmasters aver 
that to unlearn them of habits acquired on board the fishing vessels, requires 
vastly more labor and patience than to take young men who have never been 
to sea at all. But the men who are engaged as fishermen are almost entirely a 
' floating population,' a large proportion foreigners, who go a fishing for a 
season, sometimes for relaxation from other employments, sometimes from 
curiosity, but hardly ever with the idea of making seamanship a permanent 
business." 

Such is, also, the testimony of the Patriot, published at Barnstable, the largest 
fishing district, which says: 

''"Whilst it affords to the foreigner ah opportunity to acquire seamanship, it 
encourages our own young men into the fisheries, who would otherwise enter 
immediately into the merchant service, where they would learn twice or thrice 
as fast. Besides, the boy who once became a fisherman, is often led to embrace 
it as a profession for life — a business the poorest, the hardest, the worst of almost 
any under the light of the sun. Thus, the boy, who, if he had first entered 
the merchant service, would have arisen to competency and respect, is, by en- 



13 

tering upon this service, induced to continue in it, and is, in effect, induced to 
adopt a business which he would never have adopted if this same bounty had 
not encouraged the business.. 

"The foreigner is advanced in his interests by fishing, because he learns ordi- 
nary seamanship, and beyond this he generally aspires not. But the American 
fails to learn that seamanship which is to advance him to his hoped for situa- 
tion in a merchantman. The moment he seeks even a mate's berth in a merchant 
vessel, because he has previously been one on a dozen fishing voyages, that 
moment he finds himself mistaken. He is told that his past experience is worth 
just nothing at all ! This is true to the very letter, and hundreds can testify to 
this truth. If he goes into the merchant service, he has got to learn seaman- 
ship all over again, and his past tuition counts him just nothing at all. lie has 
merely lost his time by going a fishing, encouraged by a bounty." 

Mr. HAMLIN. Will the Senator allow me to ask him a question? 

Mr. CLAY. Certainly. 

Mr. HAMLIN. I desire to ask him if he knows that the editors of each of 
those papers are custom-house officers, who are ready to do the dirtiest work 
of any Administration when they suppose any question may be an Administra- 
tion measure ? 

Mr. CLAY. I do not know it. 

Mr. HAMLIN. I know they are, 

Mr. CLAY. I do not think they are. Mr. Bates is the editor of the Plymouth 
Rock, the paper from which I read. I think he is not a custom-house officer. 

Mr. HAMLIN. Yes he is. 

Mr. CLAY. Who is the editor of the Patriot ? I cannot say. 

Mr. HAMLIN. Mr. Spinney — a custom-house officer. 

Mr. CLAY. "Well, sir, the custom-house officers of New England are a very 
corrupt and depraved set, if what the Senator says be true ; for it is the com- 
mon testimony furnished by most of them, and not furnished for this occasion, 
but through a series of years past; and I am not willing to think so badly of 
his constituents as he himself seems to think. 

Now, Mr. President, I say, if it be true, as alleged, that the cod fishery is the 
peculiar nursery of seamen, it imposes irpon the advocates of that opinion a 
response to the question : how it happens that the merchantmen, or the whalers, 
of a thousand or more tons, of more complex rigging, of twenty or more sails, 
of sixteen or more yards, making voyages of twenty thousand miles or more, 
spending years of "business in the great waters," are not as good schools for 
seamen as the cod fishery, which employs schooners or fishing smacks of sixty- 
five tons or less, which are engaged but four months a year in cruising around 
the coast or islands of New England, or on the banks of New Foundland '( The 
framers of these laws did not regard them as the peculiar nurseries of seamen, 
neither did they design by the laws to make them the nurseries of seamen. 
This is shown by the language of the acts from which I have read, but it is 
further evidenced by these facts: all these allowances were contingent on the 
salt duty which they always accompanied ; they are always found in the salt 
acts, and not in the fishing code. We have a code regulating the fisheries 
quite as old as the Government; and if 'they were intended to be fostered as 
nurseries of seamen, there would be the proper place to find these bounties, but 
you find them always annexed to the salt duty. The condition of the allow- 
ance was the quantity of fish caught and exported which had been cured with 
foreign salt. The same allowance, up to lal3, was made to the exporters of 
salt provisions, of beef, and pork. Can it be supposed that Congress intended 
to raise seamen out of the farmers of the West? Can it be believed that Con- 
gress intended to nurture seamen of those who never went to'sea? This prop- 
osition at once shows the absurdity of contending that these laws were intended 
as the nursery of seamen. It imputes to their framers the folly of the fond 
mother who advised her son not to go into the water until he learned how to 
swim! Moreover, it will be found that all these laws were for brief periods — the 



u 

longest of them extended only for ten years, the next for seven years, and several 
of them for but two years. Did Congress expect to train a nursery of seamen 
in two, seven, or even ten years? Lastly, all these laws applied to foreigners 
as well as citizens of the United States up to 1817. For thirty-odd years this 
bounty or drawback was paid to foreigners as well as natives or naturalized 
citizens. No distinction was made. At this day, the law doe3 not exclude for- 
eigners, for the word used is "persons," and not citizens; and at this day, as 
testified by the collectors to whom I have referred, and by the papers from 
which I have just read, and which I will not trouble the Senate with reading now, 
many of those persons employed in these fisheries are foreigners. They repre- 
sent that they can get foreign fishermen for the coast or banks of Newfoundland 
for a much lower price than seamen at home, and they go out and employ them 
there. 

But, sir, we are told that the fisheries cannot live without this bounty. Sup- 
pose that to be true, is it the duty of Congress to foster any occupation which 
cannot support itself? "Whence do we derive the power to become almoners of 
public charity, and to provide for those who cannot take care of themselves ? 
But, sir, any one who has examined the table appended to the report which I 
had the honor to submit some time ago, will see that, according to the reports 
of the fishermen themselves, this, so far from being a languishing business, ought 
to be very flourishing. In compliance with a law of Massachusetts, the asses- 
sors of the several towns in past years have been required to return the capital 
invested, the men employed, and gross proceeds of every occupation within the 
State. I find that in 1837 they reported the vessels employed in the mackerel 
and cod fisheries at one thousand two hundred and ninety, the tonnage at 
seventy-six thousand and eighty-nine, the hands employed at eleven thousand 
one hundred and forty-six, the capital invested at $2,683,176, the aggregate 
value of the proceeds, $3,208,559, making one hundred and nineteen per cent. 
of gross proceeds upon the capital invested ! In 1845, 1 find that the gross pro- 
ceeds exceeded one hundred and nineteen per cent, upon the capital invested. 
In 1855, I fir.d that the average per cent, of gross proceeds was nearly seventy- 
six per cent. And after deducting fifty per cent, for expenses, yet it yielded 
an average profit of thirty-eight per cent.; and after superadding to this de- 
duction of fifty per cent., sixty-three dollars for each man employed, (which 
Mr. Scudder says is all that they get,) still the average amounts to nearly 
twenty-one per cent. ; and after allowing $100 per man in addition to the dis- 
count of fiit} 7 per cent, of the gross proceeds, still the average exceeds eleven 
per cent. Thus it appears that this business, far from being a losing or decay- 
ing one, quite equals, if it does not exceed, in profits any other business in the 
country. 

But,' Mr. President, to whose benefit does this bouuty inure? Not to the 
fishermen, but to the two or three thousand owners of fishing vessels. Such 
is the common testimony of the collectors on this subject. Such is the testi- 
mony of the special agent of the Treasury Department sent to look into the 
fisheries, and to report their condition. Such is impliedly the admission of the 
owners of the fishing vessels themselves; for they concede that they do not 
observe the law which requires them to divide the proceeds of a cruise in pro- 
portion to the fish taken by each man, and that, in violation of the law and 
the express regulations of the Departmeat, some of the owners take half to 
themselves, and divide the other half equally among the crew. If they will 
violate the law in one particular, why will they not do so in every other? 
To whom is this money paid ? To the owners of the fishing vessels. What 
officer or agent of the Government supervises its division among the fishermen? 
No one. It is left solely to the discretion and the conscience of the owner of 
the fishing vessel. He is the arbiter of his own cause, in violation of every 
principle of judicial justice. Are avarice and self-interest stronger than justice 
and generosity?* Are men kinder to others than to themselves? Can any one 
believe that Congress can make bargains for these men, and that they will ob- 
serve them strictly, though it be to their own prejudice? Why may they not 
stipulate that the fishermen shall have so much for the voyage, less the amount 
of the bounty ? Is the bounty no inducement to the enterprise ? It is either 



15 

nn inducement, or it is not If it be no inducement to the fishermen to engage 
in the cruise, then there is no reason why it should be continued. If it be an 
inducement, then the fishermen can afford to ask less from their employers, the 
owners of the fishing vessels, and no doubt do take less, and thus it inures to 
the benefit of the owners. 

Another reason why I believe the two or three thousand owners of fishing 
vessels generally enjoy all of this bounty is, that the fishermen are frequently 
changed duriug a season. They go out one voyage, return, are discharged, and 
other fishermen are taken. Such is the report of all the collectors; and, if 
this be true, none of these fishermen are entitled, according to law, to any of 
the bounty; and thus it may happen that the owners of the fishing vessels 
may realize the entire bounty, as is charged. 

Mr. President, according to the experience of England, of France, and of 
Holland, such bounties are wholly inexpedient. They have endeavored, by a 
system of bounties, to build up their herring and whale fisheries, and they have 
signally failed. But I need not go abroad to prove the inexpediency of these 
bounties. Let any Senator compare the increase of the whale and herring 
fisheries with the cod fisheries, and he will say at once that these bounties have 
not redounded to the advantage of the cod fisheries. Our whale fishermen, 
without any bounty whatever from the Government, though competing with 
the fishermen of the greatest commercial countries of Europe — though compe- 
ting with the fishermen of England, of Holland, and of France, who were paid 
large premrams and large bounties on this interest, have outstripped them all. 
A few fishing towns in New England, without bounty, without Government 

gatronage or aid, have more tonnage and seamen in the whale fishery than 
ugland, with all the bounties, and premiums, and remissions of duties extended 
to her whale fishermen through a series of years. 

It is sufficient to condemn this bounty system to show that it is demoralizing. 
The late Secretary of the Treasury says, substantially, that it is a premium 
offered for frauds and perjuries; and he is sustained in this assertion by the 
testimony of the collectors from one extreme to the other of the coast of New 
England. They declare that the laws are not complied with; but that theso 
bounties are realized in violation of the laws. Such is the admission, in effect, 
of the fishermen themselves. In several of their memorials, which I have read, 
they declare that they cannot comply with the requisitions of the Department 
and realize any profit. For instance, the law inhibits them from taking other 
fish than the cod fish during a cod fishing voyage, and from taking fresh fish to 
market, and requires that they should confine themselves exclusively to the 
catching and salting of cod fish. They declare, in their memorials, that they 
had better give up the bounties than observe this regulation ; for that, if they 
are required to throw their fresh fish overboard, they will sink more money 
than they can realize from the bounty, as many of the fresh fish they take are 
worth more than the cod, and the fresh cod will often realize a better price and 
readier sale than the dried. Yet they claimed and got the bounty. Who can 
doubt that they also saved and sold their fresh fish? 

But, sir, it is demoralizing in another aspect. It encourages a sentiment 
already too pervading in the country, of dependence on the Government for 
support. Such a sentiment is baneful to individual as well as national pros- 
perity. It paralyzes the industry, enervates the mind, and enfeebles the will 
of man to teaeli him to look to Government as a natural or foster parent for 
support and aid in every enterprise. It keeps him in his minority through life, 
and he can never feel or exercise the freedom, independence, and self-reliance 
of mature manhood. It reduces him to a state of pupilage, in which he cannot 
think without instruction, or act without assistance. It discourages enterprise, 
easlaves the spirit, suppresses noble aspirations, and prevents brave effort*. 
Unsatisfied desire is the natural aliment of human exertion, whether it be men- 
tal or physical, and without it man would cease to labor. Labor, by divine 
decree, is the condition of success, and without it nothing great or valuable is 
achieved. Poverty is the nurse of great souls, and necessity the parent of 
heroic efforts ; and the fountain of the Muses, bursting from a barreu rock, is 
an apt emblem of the hard source whence spring the noblest aspirations of the 



16 

mind, and the most glorious achievements of the hand. "Whenever Govern- 
ment undertakes to supply man's wants and relieve his labors', it violates a law 
of nature which will sooner or later vindicate its own majesty. 

Suppose it were possible for this Government to supply all the wants, and 
satisfy all the desires of its citizens — to give lands to the landless, houses to the 
shelterless, food to the hungry, aud clothing to the naked : how long would 
science, art, literature, freedom, religion, anything that ennobles man, and 
elevates him above the beast, survive such an experiment? How long would 
we have a government worth preserving, or freemen to preserve it? Such a 
government would prove a greater curse than that of Adam, and more intoler- 
able than the vilest tyranny of barbaric autocrats. 

Sir, I demand the repeal of these bounties, because they are unconstitutional, 
they are unjust, they are inexpedient, they are demoralizing. I demand the 
repeal of the laws under which they are drawn, because the inducements held 
out for their enactment have ceased to exist ; because the reason of them has 
ceased ; and because the effect ot them is far different from that which was 
intended, or expected, or desired. 



*Table exhibiting the tonnage of vessels engaged in the cod fisheries, the allowances 
paid, &c.,from 1S48 to 1S57. 



Years. 


Tonnage of ves- 
sels engaged in 
cod fisheries. 


Allowance paid to 
fishing vessels. 


Sums due as draw- 
backs. 


Exfess of bounty 
over drawback. 


184S 

1849 


82, 652 
73,SS2 
85,646 
87,476 

102, 659 
99, 990 

102, 194 

102, 928 
95,816 

104,573 


$243,484 
287, 604 
286, 796 
828, 267 
304,569 
323, 199 
874,286 
346, 196 

• 134, 659 
601,453 


$22,811 95 
21,809 66 
22, 807 76 
25, 193 OS 
26,855 59 
24, 847 41 
31,261 36 
32,4S4 07 
29,319 69 
29,233 61 


$220, 622 
265, 794 


1850 


264,488 
303, 074 


1851 


1852 


277, 713 


1858 


298,351 


1854 


343, 024 


1855 


318, 712 


1856 


105, 339 


1857 


572, 219 






Ten years 


937, S26 


$3,230,463 


$266,124 IS 
• 1 


$2,964,336 



Average tonnage per year, for ten years 

Average allowance per year, for ten years ., 

Average sum due as drawback, per year 

Average excess of bounty over drawbacks, per year, for ten years. 
Aggregate excess of bounty over drawback, in last ten years 



. ... 93,782.6 

$323, 046 30 

26,612 40 

292,433 60 

2,964,336 00 



'& 



LIBRARY OF 



CONGRESS 






002 876 828 a 



